and maintenance of captive-born dolphins. That is, 
Mirage intended to contend that the Service could not 
regulate or prohibit a swim program that uses only 
captive-born animals. At the end of 1992 no disposi- 
tive motions had been filed in the case. 
On 9 November 1992 a participant in a swim-with- 
the-dolphin program was injured when he was 
rammed by a male dolphin, allegedly without provo- 
cation. The participant was treated for a fractured 
sternum. 
After learning of the incident, on 17 December 
1992 the National Marine Fisheries Service wrote to 
the facility, noting that the permit authorizing the 
swim-with-the-dolphin program requires that dolphins 
that injure humans be removed from the program 
immediately. Such animals may not be returned to 
the program until aggressive behaviors have been 
eliminated and it is determined that the dolphin poses 
no risk to human participants. The Service also noted 
that the facility had failed to notify the Service of the 
injury within twenty-four hours of the incident, as 
required by the permit. 
By letter of 22 December 1992 the permit holder 
advised the Service that it had removed the animal 
from the program but that it believed this action was 
unnecessary. The permit holder contended that the 
permit authorized it to determine whether a dolphin 
was Suitable to participate in the program, and in its 
view the aggressive behavior exhibited by the dolphin 
in question had been eliminated. Nevertheless, the 
facility operator agreed to a third-party examination of 
the animal’s fitness for the program. 
By letter of 30 December 1992 to the National 
Marine Fisheries Service, the Commission provided 
its views on the incident. The Commission pointed 
out the apparent inability of the swim-with-the-dolphin 
facility to comply with the permit requirements and 
the risk to participants who are exposed to potentially 
aggressive animals. The Commission suggested that 
the public safety would best be insured by a review of 
the suitability of an animal that has exhibited aggres- 
sive behavior and that such a review should be carried 
out by the Service in consultation with disinterested, 
third-party experts in dolphin behavior. The Commis- 
sion further suggested that the Service undertake an 
189 
Chapter XI — Permits for Marine Mammals 
immediate review of all swim-with-the-dolphin pro- 
grams including (1) an analysis of the safety of the 
programs in light of reported and unreported acci- 
dents; and (2) a careful review of the provisions and 
wording of the existing permits to determine if modi- 
fications are needed. At the end of 1992 the Com- 
mission was reviewing the matter to determine wheth- 
er it should formally recommend that the Service 
conduct such a review. 
Feeding Wild Marine Mammals 
In 1988 the Commission became aware that certain 
operators conducting commercial dolphin-watching 
trips in the Gulf of Mexico had begun feeding dol- 
phins as part of their tours. The Commission referred 
the matter to the National Marine Fisheries Service, 
noting that feeding wild dolphins was contrary to the 
provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and 
could adversely affect dolphins. 
Recognizing that dolphin-feeding may constitute a 
“take” under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, on 
25 January 1989 one operator requested a public 
display permit to approach, observe, and feed wild 
bottlenose dolphins in the Corpus Christi Ship Canal. 
After a thorough review of the issue, the Commission 
concluded that wild dolphin feeding programs, even 
those conducted with the utmost care and best of 
intentions, could adversely affect the dolphins. On 21 
December 1989, the Commission wrote to the Service 
recommended that the permit be denied. Among the 
considerations that led to its conclusion were that 
feeding programs may (1) cause dolphins to be 
attracted to fishing boats and other vessels, increasing 
the likelihood that they will become entangled in 
fishing gear, be struck by vessels, or be shot, poi- 
soned, or fed foreign objects; (2) cause animals to 
become dependent on such food sources and become 
less able to find and catch natural prey when feeding 
is discontinued; (3) alter migratory patterns, thereby 
subjecting animals to food shortages or inhospitable 
conditions that they otherwise would avoid; (4) con- 
dition animals to expect food from people, causing 
aggressive behavior when food is not offered; and 
(5) expose animals to and make them more susceptible 
to disease. 
